Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 852
February 26, 2016
“He was so scared, like a little frightened puppy”: The 10 most bizarre moments from Trump’s Fort Worth rally
Donald Trump's rally in Fort Worth on Friday may have been most surreal performance to date. Trump's speech included a Marco Rubio impression, insults to Jeff Bezos and Mitt Romney, and a shout out to a fan's "big, beautiful beard." Here are the 10 most bizarre, over the top moments: 1. On Marco Rubio: "He's a nervous basketcase. You had to see him backstage. He was putting on makeup with a trowel. I will not say that he was trying to cover up his ears. I will not say that. He was just trying to cover up the sweat. Did you ever see a guy sweat like this?" 2. On Marco Rubio during his New Hampshire debate showdown with Chris Christie: "I thought he was going to die. He was so scared, like a little frightened puppy." 3. Trump then poked fun at Rubio's water bottle gaffe: https://twitter.com/MashableNews/stat... 4. On Chris Christie's endorsement: "When you're in number one place for a long period of time, the endorsements are coming in, but the one I was really happy with was this one right here. So Chris, thank you, we love you man." Trump wasn't so warm to Christie back in December, when Trump said of Christie's "Bridgegate" scandal: "Here is the story, the George Washington Bridge, he knew about it." 5. "Jeb Bush had $150 million. What a waste of money." 6. On Mitt Romney (who recently called on Trump to release his tax returns): "Harry Reid shamed him and made him look like a baby, and pushed him and pushed him and really made him look so stupid and weak...He walked like a penguin." 7. "I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought the Washington Post to have political influence...He wants political influence so that Amazon will benefit from it. That's not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh do they have problems." 8. "I'm gonna open up our libel laws so when [the Washington Post and the New York Times] write purposely horrible and negative and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." 9. "The American dream is dead, but we're going to make it bigger and stronger and better than ever before." 10. "We have more Christians than we have men or women in our country!" Someone should check Trump's math on that last one.Donald Trump's rally in Fort Worth on Friday may have been most surreal performance to date. Trump's speech included a Marco Rubio impression, insults to Jeff Bezos and Mitt Romney, and a shout out to a fan's "big, beautiful beard." Here are the 10 most bizarre, over the top moments: 1. On Marco Rubio: "He's a nervous basketcase. You had to see him backstage. He was putting on makeup with a trowel. I will not say that he was trying to cover up his ears. I will not say that. He was just trying to cover up the sweat. Did you ever see a guy sweat like this?" 2. On Marco Rubio during his New Hampshire debate showdown with Chris Christie: "I thought he was going to die. He was so scared, like a little frightened puppy." 3. Trump then poked fun at Rubio's water bottle gaffe: https://twitter.com/MashableNews/stat... 4. On Chris Christie's endorsement: "When you're in number one place for a long period of time, the endorsements are coming in, but the one I was really happy with was this one right here. So Chris, thank you, we love you man." Trump wasn't so warm to Christie back in December, when Trump said of Christie's "Bridgegate" scandal: "Here is the story, the George Washington Bridge, he knew about it." 5. "Jeb Bush had $150 million. What a waste of money." 6. On Mitt Romney (who recently called on Trump to release his tax returns): "Harry Reid shamed him and made him look like a baby, and pushed him and pushed him and really made him look so stupid and weak...He walked like a penguin." 7. "I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought the Washington Post to have political influence...He wants political influence so that Amazon will benefit from it. That's not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh do they have problems." 8. "I'm gonna open up our libel laws so when [the Washington Post and the New York Times] write purposely horrible and negative and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." 9. "The American dream is dead, but we're going to make it bigger and stronger and better than ever before." 10. "We have more Christians than we have men or women in our country!" Someone should check Trump's math on that last one.Donald Trump's rally in Fort Worth on Friday may have been most surreal performance to date. Trump's speech included a Marco Rubio impression, insults to Jeff Bezos and Mitt Romney, and a shout out to a fan's "big, beautiful beard." Here are the 10 most bizarre, over the top moments: 1. On Marco Rubio: "He's a nervous basketcase. You had to see him backstage. He was putting on makeup with a trowel. I will not say that he was trying to cover up his ears. I will not say that. He was just trying to cover up the sweat. Did you ever see a guy sweat like this?" 2. On Marco Rubio during his New Hampshire debate showdown with Chris Christie: "I thought he was going to die. He was so scared, like a little frightened puppy." 3. Trump then poked fun at Rubio's water bottle gaffe: https://twitter.com/MashableNews/stat... 4. On Chris Christie's endorsement: "When you're in number one place for a long period of time, the endorsements are coming in, but the one I was really happy with was this one right here. So Chris, thank you, we love you man." Trump wasn't so warm to Christie back in December, when Trump said of Christie's "Bridgegate" scandal: "Here is the story, the George Washington Bridge, he knew about it." 5. "Jeb Bush had $150 million. What a waste of money." 6. On Mitt Romney (who recently called on Trump to release his tax returns): "Harry Reid shamed him and made him look like a baby, and pushed him and pushed him and really made him look so stupid and weak...He walked like a penguin." 7. "I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought the Washington Post to have political influence...He wants political influence so that Amazon will benefit from it. That's not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh do they have problems." 8. "I'm gonna open up our libel laws so when [the Washington Post and the New York Times] write purposely horrible and negative and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." 9. "The American dream is dead, but we're going to make it bigger and stronger and better than ever before." 10. "We have more Christians than we have men or women in our country!" Someone should check Trump's math on that last one.Donald Trump's rally in Fort Worth on Friday may have been most surreal performance to date. Trump's speech included a Marco Rubio impression, insults to Jeff Bezos and Mitt Romney, and a shout out to a fan's "big, beautiful beard." Here are the 10 most bizarre, over the top moments: 1. On Marco Rubio: "He's a nervous basketcase. You had to see him backstage. He was putting on makeup with a trowel. I will not say that he was trying to cover up his ears. I will not say that. He was just trying to cover up the sweat. Did you ever see a guy sweat like this?" 2. On Marco Rubio during his New Hampshire debate showdown with Chris Christie: "I thought he was going to die. He was so scared, like a little frightened puppy." 3. Trump then poked fun at Rubio's water bottle gaffe: https://twitter.com/MashableNews/stat... 4. On Chris Christie's endorsement: "When you're in number one place for a long period of time, the endorsements are coming in, but the one I was really happy with was this one right here. So Chris, thank you, we love you man." Trump wasn't so warm to Christie back in December, when Trump said of Christie's "Bridgegate" scandal: "Here is the story, the George Washington Bridge, he knew about it." 5. "Jeb Bush had $150 million. What a waste of money." 6. On Mitt Romney (who recently called on Trump to release his tax returns): "Harry Reid shamed him and made him look like a baby, and pushed him and pushed him and really made him look so stupid and weak...He walked like a penguin." 7. "I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought the Washington Post to have political influence...He wants political influence so that Amazon will benefit from it. That's not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh do they have problems." 8. "I'm gonna open up our libel laws so when [the Washington Post and the New York Times] write purposely horrible and negative and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." 9. "The American dream is dead, but we're going to make it bigger and stronger and better than ever before." 10. "We have more Christians than we have men or women in our country!" Someone should check Trump's math on that last one.
Popular right-wing news site proposes executing Guantánamo detainees, which would be quite illegal
"Why not shoot them?" asks prominent right-wing magazine National Review, in an article proposing that the U.S. government execute Guantánamo detainees instead of transferring them. President Obama issued a new plan this week for closing the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay. In lieu of spending time and energy working on transferring the remaining 91 detainees, National Review proposes that it would be both legal and moral for the government to simply kill them and get it over with. The problem is this would be very illegal — not to mention immoral. A legal expert told Salon the argument "is absolutely wrong" and has no basis in law. Author Kevin D. Williamson begins his article correctly pointing out that Obama has expanded the drone assassination program "to include the extrajudicial execution, i.e., murder, of U.S. citizens" — namely Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The ultimate irony, and paradox, in Williamson's argument, however, is that he (rightfully) chastises the Obama administration for executing U.S. citizens without trial, yet simultaneously openly defends mass extrajudicial execution of scores of people whom the government is holding in indefinite detention. This is the reality of the situation, a reality Williamson completely fails to acknowledge: very few of the people detained in Guantánamo have faced due process for their alleged crimes. National Review claims the prison is "currently home to 91 sundry villains captured abroad during our ongoing national confrontation with the forces of radical Islam," while ignoring the fact that, since the prison was opened in January 2002, almost 90 percent of the approximately 780 detainees who have been held in it have been transferred, including just under 540 by the Bush administration alone. Also unacknowledged is the fact that roughly 86 percent of the detainees who have gone through the Periodic Review Board process (which is still not a trial, but rather an administrative process run by the U.S. military) have been approved for transfer. Williamson — who asks "Why not shoot them?" four times in the article (five if you consider the headline) and proposes "the relatively straightforward expedient of shooting them" — appears to believe that it is okay to carry out extrajudicial executions against non-U.S. citizens, and that it is only U.S. citizens who deserve the right to due process. In order to justify his own defense of extrajudicial execution, Williamson takes a jab at interpreting international law — and greatly distorts it in the process. Salon reached out to a legal expert, who explained that Williamson's argument has no merit whatsoever. "Any claim that international law permits the summary execution of Guantánamo detainees or anyone else is absolutely wrong," said Wells Dixon, a Center for Constitutional Rights senior staff attorney who specializes in challenging unlawful detentions at Guantánamo. In his piece, Williamson argues that the "prisoners held at Gitmo are, for the most part, what is known under international law as 'francs-tireurs,' non-uniformed militiamen who conduct sabotage and terrorism operations against occupation forces." He cites "Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions," which he says stipulates that "fighters eligible for the protections extended to prisoners of war are obliged to meet several criteria, including the wearing of uniforms or fixed insignia and — here's the rub for the Islamic State et al. — conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." "Non-uniformed militiamen and insurgents sawing the heads off of Wall Street Journal reporters do not qualify for Geneva Convention protections," Williamson writes. "They are, under the applicable international law, subject to summary execution, as are captured spies, terrorists, and the like." For starters, Williamson's attempt to conflate ISIS with Guantánamo is a clever trick, but is ultimately dishonest. The U.S. prison at Guantánamo was opened in January 2002, and was most active under the Bush administration. The extremist group that calls itself the Islamic State, on the other hand, has only existed since early 2014. Moreover, once again, Williamson fails to grasp the basics of the international law he's citing, the Center for Constitutional Rights expert explained. "The 'Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions' referred to by Williamson is evidently a reference to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, which is the article that dictates whether someone is entitled to be treated as prisoner of war," Dixon told Salon. "There is also a Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies automatically by default to anyone who is not given prisoner-of-war status under the Third Geneva Convention." "It's binary; upon capture you're either a POW under the Third Geneva Convention or you're a protected person (civilian) under the Fourth Geneva Convention," Dixon continued. "Civilians can be prosecuted criminally for things like sabotage and terrorism, but not summarily executed." Dixon furthermore pointed out that "the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions only apply in the context of 'international armed conflict,' which is basically nation-states fighting each other (think U.S. v. Germany)." "The other kind of armed conflict, referred to as 'non-international armed conflict,' applies to conflicts not between nation-states (think the conflict with al-Qaeda)," the attorney added. "The Supreme Court has said that the conflict with al-Qaeda is non-international in nature, and the Obama administration has conceded as much." "This matters because the only provision of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international armed conflict is Common Article 3 (so-called because it is the same across all four of the Geneva Conventions)," Dixon said. Common Article 3 states:
"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character... Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely... To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons... violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."Dixon concluded noting that the "idea that there is a category of detainee not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions or other international law died with the Bush Administration and John Yoo," the latter of whom, as deputy assistant attorney general, crafted the legal argument for Bush's so-called War on Terror, and authored the infamous "Torture Memos." Besides, "not even they claimed that Guantánamo detainees could be summarily executed," Dixon added. The Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer noted that he is critical of the Obama administration's new plan to close Guantánamo, which he said "is not sufficient to actually achieve closure" and really proposes "nothing new." Calling National Review's article "irresponsible," Dixon also criticized Obama for failing to take action on U.S. government crimes. "Unfortunately, these sorts of irresponsible statements are a direct consequence of the administration’s failure to ensure accountability for CIA torture and other war crimes," he said."Why not shoot them?" asks prominent right-wing magazine National Review, in an article proposing that the U.S. government execute Guantánamo detainees instead of transferring them. President Obama issued a new plan this week for closing the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay. In lieu of spending time and energy working on transferring the remaining 91 detainees, National Review proposes that it would be both legal and moral for the government to simply kill them and get it over with. The problem is this would be very illegal — not to mention immoral. A legal expert told Salon the argument "is absolutely wrong" and has no basis in law. Author Kevin D. Williamson begins his article correctly pointing out that Obama has expanded the drone assassination program "to include the extrajudicial execution, i.e., murder, of U.S. citizens" — namely Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The ultimate irony, and paradox, in Williamson's argument, however, is that he (rightfully) chastises the Obama administration for executing U.S. citizens without trial, yet simultaneously openly defends mass extrajudicial execution of scores of people whom the government is holding in indefinite detention. This is the reality of the situation, a reality Williamson completely fails to acknowledge: very few of the people detained in Guantánamo have faced due process for their alleged crimes. National Review claims the prison is "currently home to 91 sundry villains captured abroad during our ongoing national confrontation with the forces of radical Islam," while ignoring the fact that, since the prison was opened in January 2002, almost 90 percent of the approximately 780 detainees who have been held in it have been transferred, including just under 540 by the Bush administration alone. Also unacknowledged is the fact that roughly 86 percent of the detainees who have gone through the Periodic Review Board process (which is still not a trial, but rather an administrative process run by the U.S. military) have been approved for transfer. Williamson — who asks "Why not shoot them?" four times in the article (five if you consider the headline) and proposes "the relatively straightforward expedient of shooting them" — appears to believe that it is okay to carry out extrajudicial executions against non-U.S. citizens, and that it is only U.S. citizens who deserve the right to due process. In order to justify his own defense of extrajudicial execution, Williamson takes a jab at interpreting international law — and greatly distorts it in the process. Salon reached out to a legal expert, who explained that Williamson's argument has no merit whatsoever. "Any claim that international law permits the summary execution of Guantánamo detainees or anyone else is absolutely wrong," said Wells Dixon, a Center for Constitutional Rights senior staff attorney who specializes in challenging unlawful detentions at Guantánamo. In his piece, Williamson argues that the "prisoners held at Gitmo are, for the most part, what is known under international law as 'francs-tireurs,' non-uniformed militiamen who conduct sabotage and terrorism operations against occupation forces." He cites "Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions," which he says stipulates that "fighters eligible for the protections extended to prisoners of war are obliged to meet several criteria, including the wearing of uniforms or fixed insignia and — here's the rub for the Islamic State et al. — conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." "Non-uniformed militiamen and insurgents sawing the heads off of Wall Street Journal reporters do not qualify for Geneva Convention protections," Williamson writes. "They are, under the applicable international law, subject to summary execution, as are captured spies, terrorists, and the like." For starters, Williamson's attempt to conflate ISIS with Guantánamo is a clever trick, but is ultimately dishonest. The U.S. prison at Guantánamo was opened in January 2002, and was most active under the Bush administration. The extremist group that calls itself the Islamic State, on the other hand, has only existed since early 2014. Moreover, once again, Williamson fails to grasp the basics of the international law he's citing, the Center for Constitutional Rights expert explained. "The 'Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions' referred to by Williamson is evidently a reference to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, which is the article that dictates whether someone is entitled to be treated as prisoner of war," Dixon told Salon. "There is also a Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies automatically by default to anyone who is not given prisoner-of-war status under the Third Geneva Convention." "It's binary; upon capture you're either a POW under the Third Geneva Convention or you're a protected person (civilian) under the Fourth Geneva Convention," Dixon continued. "Civilians can be prosecuted criminally for things like sabotage and terrorism, but not summarily executed." Dixon furthermore pointed out that "the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions only apply in the context of 'international armed conflict,' which is basically nation-states fighting each other (think U.S. v. Germany)." "The other kind of armed conflict, referred to as 'non-international armed conflict,' applies to conflicts not between nation-states (think the conflict with al-Qaeda)," the attorney added. "The Supreme Court has said that the conflict with al-Qaeda is non-international in nature, and the Obama administration has conceded as much." "This matters because the only provision of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international armed conflict is Common Article 3 (so-called because it is the same across all four of the Geneva Conventions)," Dixon said. Common Article 3 states:
"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character... Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely... To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons... violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."Dixon concluded noting that the "idea that there is a category of detainee not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions or other international law died with the Bush Administration and John Yoo," the latter of whom, as deputy assistant attorney general, crafted the legal argument for Bush's so-called War on Terror, and authored the infamous "Torture Memos." Besides, "not even they claimed that Guantánamo detainees could be summarily executed," Dixon added. The Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer noted that he is critical of the Obama administration's new plan to close Guantánamo, which he said "is not sufficient to actually achieve closure" and really proposes "nothing new." Calling National Review's article "irresponsible," Dixon also criticized Obama for failing to take action on U.S. government crimes. "Unfortunately, these sorts of irresponsible statements are a direct consequence of the administration’s failure to ensure accountability for CIA torture and other war crimes," he said."Why not shoot them?" asks prominent right-wing magazine National Review, in an article proposing that the U.S. government execute Guantánamo detainees instead of transferring them. President Obama issued a new plan this week for closing the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay. In lieu of spending time and energy working on transferring the remaining 91 detainees, National Review proposes that it would be both legal and moral for the government to simply kill them and get it over with. The problem is this would be very illegal — not to mention immoral. A legal expert told Salon the argument "is absolutely wrong" and has no basis in law. Author Kevin D. Williamson begins his article correctly pointing out that Obama has expanded the drone assassination program "to include the extrajudicial execution, i.e., murder, of U.S. citizens" — namely Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The ultimate irony, and paradox, in Williamson's argument, however, is that he (rightfully) chastises the Obama administration for executing U.S. citizens without trial, yet simultaneously openly defends mass extrajudicial execution of scores of people whom the government is holding in indefinite detention. This is the reality of the situation, a reality Williamson completely fails to acknowledge: very few of the people detained in Guantánamo have faced due process for their alleged crimes. National Review claims the prison is "currently home to 91 sundry villains captured abroad during our ongoing national confrontation with the forces of radical Islam," while ignoring the fact that, since the prison was opened in January 2002, almost 90 percent of the approximately 780 detainees who have been held in it have been transferred, including just under 540 by the Bush administration alone. Also unacknowledged is the fact that roughly 86 percent of the detainees who have gone through the Periodic Review Board process (which is still not a trial, but rather an administrative process run by the U.S. military) have been approved for transfer. Williamson — who asks "Why not shoot them?" four times in the article (five if you consider the headline) and proposes "the relatively straightforward expedient of shooting them" — appears to believe that it is okay to carry out extrajudicial executions against non-U.S. citizens, and that it is only U.S. citizens who deserve the right to due process. In order to justify his own defense of extrajudicial execution, Williamson takes a jab at interpreting international law — and greatly distorts it in the process. Salon reached out to a legal expert, who explained that Williamson's argument has no merit whatsoever. "Any claim that international law permits the summary execution of Guantánamo detainees or anyone else is absolutely wrong," said Wells Dixon, a Center for Constitutional Rights senior staff attorney who specializes in challenging unlawful detentions at Guantánamo. In his piece, Williamson argues that the "prisoners held at Gitmo are, for the most part, what is known under international law as 'francs-tireurs,' non-uniformed militiamen who conduct sabotage and terrorism operations against occupation forces." He cites "Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions," which he says stipulates that "fighters eligible for the protections extended to prisoners of war are obliged to meet several criteria, including the wearing of uniforms or fixed insignia and — here's the rub for the Islamic State et al. — conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." "Non-uniformed militiamen and insurgents sawing the heads off of Wall Street Journal reporters do not qualify for Geneva Convention protections," Williamson writes. "They are, under the applicable international law, subject to summary execution, as are captured spies, terrorists, and the like." For starters, Williamson's attempt to conflate ISIS with Guantánamo is a clever trick, but is ultimately dishonest. The U.S. prison at Guantánamo was opened in January 2002, and was most active under the Bush administration. The extremist group that calls itself the Islamic State, on the other hand, has only existed since early 2014. Moreover, once again, Williamson fails to grasp the basics of the international law he's citing, the Center for Constitutional Rights expert explained. "The 'Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions' referred to by Williamson is evidently a reference to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, which is the article that dictates whether someone is entitled to be treated as prisoner of war," Dixon told Salon. "There is also a Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies automatically by default to anyone who is not given prisoner-of-war status under the Third Geneva Convention." "It's binary; upon capture you're either a POW under the Third Geneva Convention or you're a protected person (civilian) under the Fourth Geneva Convention," Dixon continued. "Civilians can be prosecuted criminally for things like sabotage and terrorism, but not summarily executed." Dixon furthermore pointed out that "the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions only apply in the context of 'international armed conflict,' which is basically nation-states fighting each other (think U.S. v. Germany)." "The other kind of armed conflict, referred to as 'non-international armed conflict,' applies to conflicts not between nation-states (think the conflict with al-Qaeda)," the attorney added. "The Supreme Court has said that the conflict with al-Qaeda is non-international in nature, and the Obama administration has conceded as much." "This matters because the only provision of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international armed conflict is Common Article 3 (so-called because it is the same across all four of the Geneva Conventions)," Dixon said. Common Article 3 states:
"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character... Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely... To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons... violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."Dixon concluded noting that the "idea that there is a category of detainee not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions or other international law died with the Bush Administration and John Yoo," the latter of whom, as deputy assistant attorney general, crafted the legal argument for Bush's so-called War on Terror, and authored the infamous "Torture Memos." Besides, "not even they claimed that Guantánamo detainees could be summarily executed," Dixon added. The Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer noted that he is critical of the Obama administration's new plan to close Guantánamo, which he said "is not sufficient to actually achieve closure" and really proposes "nothing new." Calling National Review's article "irresponsible," Dixon also criticized Obama for failing to take action on U.S. government crimes. "Unfortunately, these sorts of irresponsible statements are a direct consequence of the administration’s failure to ensure accountability for CIA torture and other war crimes," he said."Why not shoot them?" asks prominent right-wing magazine National Review, in an article proposing that the U.S. government execute Guantánamo detainees instead of transferring them. President Obama issued a new plan this week for closing the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay. In lieu of spending time and energy working on transferring the remaining 91 detainees, National Review proposes that it would be both legal and moral for the government to simply kill them and get it over with. The problem is this would be very illegal — not to mention immoral. A legal expert told Salon the argument "is absolutely wrong" and has no basis in law. Author Kevin D. Williamson begins his article correctly pointing out that Obama has expanded the drone assassination program "to include the extrajudicial execution, i.e., murder, of U.S. citizens" — namely Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The ultimate irony, and paradox, in Williamson's argument, however, is that he (rightfully) chastises the Obama administration for executing U.S. citizens without trial, yet simultaneously openly defends mass extrajudicial execution of scores of people whom the government is holding in indefinite detention. This is the reality of the situation, a reality Williamson completely fails to acknowledge: very few of the people detained in Guantánamo have faced due process for their alleged crimes. National Review claims the prison is "currently home to 91 sundry villains captured abroad during our ongoing national confrontation with the forces of radical Islam," while ignoring the fact that, since the prison was opened in January 2002, almost 90 percent of the approximately 780 detainees who have been held in it have been transferred, including just under 540 by the Bush administration alone. Also unacknowledged is the fact that roughly 86 percent of the detainees who have gone through the Periodic Review Board process (which is still not a trial, but rather an administrative process run by the U.S. military) have been approved for transfer. Williamson — who asks "Why not shoot them?" four times in the article (five if you consider the headline) and proposes "the relatively straightforward expedient of shooting them" — appears to believe that it is okay to carry out extrajudicial executions against non-U.S. citizens, and that it is only U.S. citizens who deserve the right to due process. In order to justify his own defense of extrajudicial execution, Williamson takes a jab at interpreting international law — and greatly distorts it in the process. Salon reached out to a legal expert, who explained that Williamson's argument has no merit whatsoever. "Any claim that international law permits the summary execution of Guantánamo detainees or anyone else is absolutely wrong," said Wells Dixon, a Center for Constitutional Rights senior staff attorney who specializes in challenging unlawful detentions at Guantánamo. In his piece, Williamson argues that the "prisoners held at Gitmo are, for the most part, what is known under international law as 'francs-tireurs,' non-uniformed militiamen who conduct sabotage and terrorism operations against occupation forces." He cites "Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions," which he says stipulates that "fighters eligible for the protections extended to prisoners of war are obliged to meet several criteria, including the wearing of uniforms or fixed insignia and — here's the rub for the Islamic State et al. — conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." "Non-uniformed militiamen and insurgents sawing the heads off of Wall Street Journal reporters do not qualify for Geneva Convention protections," Williamson writes. "They are, under the applicable international law, subject to summary execution, as are captured spies, terrorists, and the like." For starters, Williamson's attempt to conflate ISIS with Guantánamo is a clever trick, but is ultimately dishonest. The U.S. prison at Guantánamo was opened in January 2002, and was most active under the Bush administration. The extremist group that calls itself the Islamic State, on the other hand, has only existed since early 2014. Moreover, once again, Williamson fails to grasp the basics of the international law he's citing, the Center for Constitutional Rights expert explained. "The 'Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions' referred to by Williamson is evidently a reference to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, which is the article that dictates whether someone is entitled to be treated as prisoner of war," Dixon told Salon. "There is also a Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies automatically by default to anyone who is not given prisoner-of-war status under the Third Geneva Convention." "It's binary; upon capture you're either a POW under the Third Geneva Convention or you're a protected person (civilian) under the Fourth Geneva Convention," Dixon continued. "Civilians can be prosecuted criminally for things like sabotage and terrorism, but not summarily executed." Dixon furthermore pointed out that "the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions only apply in the context of 'international armed conflict,' which is basically nation-states fighting each other (think U.S. v. Germany)." "The other kind of armed conflict, referred to as 'non-international armed conflict,' applies to conflicts not between nation-states (think the conflict with al-Qaeda)," the attorney added. "The Supreme Court has said that the conflict with al-Qaeda is non-international in nature, and the Obama administration has conceded as much." "This matters because the only provision of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international armed conflict is Common Article 3 (so-called because it is the same across all four of the Geneva Conventions)," Dixon said. Common Article 3 states:
"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character... Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely... To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons... violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."Dixon concluded noting that the "idea that there is a category of detainee not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions or other international law died with the Bush Administration and John Yoo," the latter of whom, as deputy assistant attorney general, crafted the legal argument for Bush's so-called War on Terror, and authored the infamous "Torture Memos." Besides, "not even they claimed that Guantánamo detainees could be summarily executed," Dixon added. The Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer noted that he is critical of the Obama administration's new plan to close Guantánamo, which he said "is not sufficient to actually achieve closure" and really proposes "nothing new." Calling National Review's article "irresponsible," Dixon also criticized Obama for failing to take action on U.S. government crimes. "Unfortunately, these sorts of irresponsible statements are a direct consequence of the administration’s failure to ensure accountability for CIA torture and other war crimes," he said.
The deeply misleading poll that supposedly “proves” Sanders is unelectable
I'm as shocked as anyone to discover that so many Americans are rallying around a self-described democratic socialist candidate for president this year. And I am a socialist. I've always been convinced that the left could win on the issues, whether it be investing in education or ending foreign wars, but I always thought that we were nowhere close to winning a large number of people over to subscribing to a broader ideological framework to advance these policies — i.e., socialism. Bernie Sanders has proven me and many others wrong. Some, however, remain unconvinced. And the unconvinced really like to cite one particular and entirely misleading poll to argue that Americans hate socialists even more than they hate Muslims and atheists. This week, Michelle Goldberg at Slate became the latest to conjure it up in an effort to paint Sanders’s radicalism as a general election liability:
“In June 2015, Gallup polled American voters about the sort of people they would and would not support for president. Eight percent would not vote for a woman. Thirty-eight percent would not vote for a Muslim, and 40 percent would not vote for an atheist. Fifty percent would not vote for a socialist; it was the most negatively viewed characteristic in the survey.”This poll isn’t just comparing apples and oranges. It’s more like apples and toasters. The survey is by and large measuring people’s bigotries: People who would not vote for someone, regardless of their policy agenda and ideology, because they are female, gay, Muslim or atheist. But socialism is like liberalism, conservatism, fascism or communism -- it’s an ideology and a political position more than an ascriptive characteristic or identity-based group. It's not that socialists don't face discrimination in the political sphere. But it's nothing like what black people face with housing or gay people still legally face in employment. In reality, that only 50-percent of people wouldn’t vote for a socialist is actually pretty good news for socialists. And this was before Sanders began re-introducing socialism -- or democratic socialism -- to the American people on a larger scale than anyone else in memory. Every election cycle, about half of voters won’t vote for a Democrat. It’s no surprise then that most conservatives who won’t vote for a liberal won’t vote for a socialist either. If Sanders wins the nomination—and that's still very much an uphill fight—Republicans will no doubt paint him as a radical out-of-tune with bedrock American principles. But the American political landscape is changing rapidly, and I'm wary of any prognosticator who predicts with any certainty that Hillary Clinton's weaknesses as a cynical centrist won't be a greater liability than Sanders's as a straight-talking and consistent progressive. The electability debate is a fair one but a lot of the arguments being advanced against Sanders are not. This Gallup poll does not mean what those who like to cite it think that it does.I'm as shocked as anyone to discover that so many Americans are rallying around a self-described democratic socialist candidate for president this year. And I am a socialist. I've always been convinced that the left could win on the issues, whether it be investing in education or ending foreign wars, but I always thought that we were nowhere close to winning a large number of people over to subscribing to a broader ideological framework to advance these policies — i.e., socialism. Bernie Sanders has proven me and many others wrong. Some, however, remain unconvinced. And the unconvinced really like to cite one particular and entirely misleading poll to argue that Americans hate socialists even more than they hate Muslims and atheists. This week, Michelle Goldberg at Slate became the latest to conjure it up in an effort to paint Sanders’s radicalism as a general election liability:
“In June 2015, Gallup polled American voters about the sort of people they would and would not support for president. Eight percent would not vote for a woman. Thirty-eight percent would not vote for a Muslim, and 40 percent would not vote for an atheist. Fifty percent would not vote for a socialist; it was the most negatively viewed characteristic in the survey.”This poll isn’t just comparing apples and oranges. It’s more like apples and toasters. The survey is by and large measuring people’s bigotries: People who would not vote for someone, regardless of their policy agenda and ideology, because they are female, gay, Muslim or atheist. But socialism is like liberalism, conservatism, fascism or communism -- it’s an ideology and a political position more than an ascriptive characteristic or identity-based group. It's not that socialists don't face discrimination in the political sphere. But it's nothing like what black people face with housing or gay people still legally face in employment. In reality, that only 50-percent of people wouldn’t vote for a socialist is actually pretty good news for socialists. And this was before Sanders began re-introducing socialism -- or democratic socialism -- to the American people on a larger scale than anyone else in memory. Every election cycle, about half of voters won’t vote for a Democrat. It’s no surprise then that most conservatives who won’t vote for a liberal won’t vote for a socialist either. If Sanders wins the nomination—and that's still very much an uphill fight—Republicans will no doubt paint him as a radical out-of-tune with bedrock American principles. But the American political landscape is changing rapidly, and I'm wary of any prognosticator who predicts with any certainty that Hillary Clinton's weaknesses as a cynical centrist won't be a greater liability than Sanders's as a straight-talking and consistent progressive. The electability debate is a fair one but a lot of the arguments being advanced against Sanders are not. This Gallup poll does not mean what those who like to cite it think that it does.
“We’re gonna have people suing you like you’ve never been sued before”: Trump threatens NYT, WaPo and the First Amendment
Trump swiftly squelched any notion of a post-debate, pre-Super Tuesday Rubio surge by flying in Chris Christie to Fort Worth, Texas on Friday where the governor not only endorsed the Donald, but stood stage left during the most theatrical campaign rally in history. Sure, substantive debate might not be Trump's strong suit, but after Friday's media spectacle, it's clear he more than makes up for it with an unmatched canniness for headline domination. After accepting Christie's endorsement and mocking Rubio by flinging water all over the stage (a la the Senator's infamous 2013 SOTU-response gaffe), Trump took an ill-advised (for anyone else) swing at the First Amendment — more specifically libel laws, which he promised to "open up" as president. "So that when The [failing] New York Times writes a hit piece ... we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump told rallygoers. "With me, they're not protected, because I'm not like other people ... I'm not taking their money." Finally, Trump addressed The New York Times and Washington Post directly, "We're gonna have people suing you like you've never been sued before." (h/t Mediaite)Trump swiftly squelched any notion of a post-debate, pre-Super Tuesday Rubio surge by flying in Chris Christie to Fort Worth, Texas on Friday where the governor not only endorsed the Donald, but stood stage left during the most theatrical campaign rally in history. Sure, substantive debate might not be Trump's strong suit, but after Friday's media spectacle, it's clear he more than makes up for it with an unmatched canniness for headline domination. After accepting Christie's endorsement and mocking Rubio by flinging water all over the stage (a la the Senator's infamous 2013 SOTU-response gaffe), Trump took an ill-advised (for anyone else) swing at the First Amendment — more specifically libel laws, which he promised to "open up" as president. "So that when The [failing] New York Times writes a hit piece ... we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump told rallygoers. "With me, they're not protected, because I'm not like other people ... I'm not taking their money." Finally, Trump addressed The New York Times and Washington Post directly, "We're gonna have people suing you like you've never been sued before." (h/t Mediaite)
“We do not need reality TV in the Oval Office right now”: A look back at Chris Christie’s greatest slams against his new BFF, Donald Trump
Not exactly a Friday afternoon news dump, but in certainly a surprise announcement meant to overtake rather than hide beneath the news cycle, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump in Texas today. “There is no one who is better prepared to provide America with the strong leadership it leads,” Christie said of his one-time rival on Friday. Of course, Christie wasn't always singing the Donald's praises. Here are just a few of Christie's choice words reserved for the Republican's dominant presidential frontrunner: On his qualifications to be president: Trump’s “temperament is [not] suited for that and I don’t think his experience is.” Campaigning against Trump in New Hampshire last month, Trump warned that if Republicans nominate a candidate like Trump “we could wind up turning over the White House to Hillary Clinton for four more years.” “We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. Showmanship is fun, but it’s not the type of leadership that will truly change America,” Christie said on the campus of Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire. “If we’re going to turn our frustration and anger with the D.C. insiders and the politicians of yesterday and the carnival barkers of today into something that will actually change Americans’ lives, then we must elect someone who has been tested, someone with proven experience.” “We do not need reality TV in the Oval Office right now,” Christie said of Trump. “President of the United States is not a place for an entertainer.” On his easy ride with media: Trump "sits in his jammies in Trump Tower and phones in!" “I got sent down to the undercard debate by Fox News,” Christie complained to Sean Hannity last month. “I didn’t think it was fair. But I didn't whine and moan and complain and walk away. I went to the debate. I argued my points. On his grand promises: “How? How?” “He’s gonna build a wall and it’s gonna be an incredible, beautiful marvelous wall," Christie said of Trump's big campaign promise to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border while in New Hampshire in January, impersonating the blustery billionaire. "The wall is gonna be unbelievable. The wall is gonna have a door, the door is gonna open and close and good people come in, the bad people go out. It’s gonna be an amazing wall. It’s gonna be a beautiful wall—and the Mexicans are gonna pay for the wall because Trump says they’ll pay for the wall.” “The core of my criticism of Mr. Trump is this,” Christie said. “How? How?” Christie's critique of The Donald's grand plans continued. “When I become president the country is gonna get so wealthy, so amazingly wealthy and rich that we’re not gonna have to worry about Social Security,” Christie said, mocking Tump. Then he turned semi-serious. “How? ... Bravado, by itself is not a plan.” On Trump's claims of cheering Muslims in New Jersey on 9/11: "It didn't happen" “It didn’t happen and the fact is, people can say anything, but the facts are the facts, and that didn’t happen in New Jersey that day and hasn’t happened since,” Christie told reporters back in December after first saying in November "I don't recall that. I don't" On his Muslim travel ban: "The kind of thing that people say when they have no experience" Last December, Christie blasted Trump's controversial and unconstitutional temporary ban on all Muslims entering the U.S., calling it "ridiculous" and "the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don't know what they're talking about." “The fact is we don't need to be profiling in order to be able to get the job done here,” Christie told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “What you need is a president who's had the experience and the know-how to do this and not someone who's just going to talk off the top of their head.” Christie, of course, had only weeks before proudly boasted that he would have no qualms about turning away a 3-year-old Syrian orphan refugee. Not exactly a Friday afternoon news dump, but in certainly a surprise announcement meant to overtake rather than hide beneath the news cycle, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump in Texas today. “There is no one who is better prepared to provide America with the strong leadership it leads,” Christie said of his one-time rival on Friday. Of course, Christie wasn't always singing the Donald's praises. Here are just a few of Christie's choice words reserved for the Republican's dominant presidential frontrunner: On his qualifications to be president: Trump’s “temperament is [not] suited for that and I don’t think his experience is.” Campaigning against Trump in New Hampshire last month, Trump warned that if Republicans nominate a candidate like Trump “we could wind up turning over the White House to Hillary Clinton for four more years.” “We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. Showmanship is fun, but it’s not the type of leadership that will truly change America,” Christie said on the campus of Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire. “If we’re going to turn our frustration and anger with the D.C. insiders and the politicians of yesterday and the carnival barkers of today into something that will actually change Americans’ lives, then we must elect someone who has been tested, someone with proven experience.” “We do not need reality TV in the Oval Office right now,” Christie said of Trump. “President of the United States is not a place for an entertainer.” On his easy ride with media: Trump "sits in his jammies in Trump Tower and phones in!" “I got sent down to the undercard debate by Fox News,” Christie complained to Sean Hannity last month. “I didn’t think it was fair. But I didn't whine and moan and complain and walk away. I went to the debate. I argued my points. On his grand promises: “How? How?” “He’s gonna build a wall and it’s gonna be an incredible, beautiful marvelous wall," Christie said of Trump's big campaign promise to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border while in New Hampshire in January, impersonating the blustery billionaire. "The wall is gonna be unbelievable. The wall is gonna have a door, the door is gonna open and close and good people come in, the bad people go out. It’s gonna be an amazing wall. It’s gonna be a beautiful wall—and the Mexicans are gonna pay for the wall because Trump says they’ll pay for the wall.” “The core of my criticism of Mr. Trump is this,” Christie said. “How? How?” Christie's critique of The Donald's grand plans continued. “When I become president the country is gonna get so wealthy, so amazingly wealthy and rich that we’re not gonna have to worry about Social Security,” Christie said, mocking Tump. Then he turned semi-serious. “How? ... Bravado, by itself is not a plan.” On Trump's claims of cheering Muslims in New Jersey on 9/11: "It didn't happen" “It didn’t happen and the fact is, people can say anything, but the facts are the facts, and that didn’t happen in New Jersey that day and hasn’t happened since,” Christie told reporters back in December after first saying in November "I don't recall that. I don't" On his Muslim travel ban: "The kind of thing that people say when they have no experience" Last December, Christie blasted Trump's controversial and unconstitutional temporary ban on all Muslims entering the U.S., calling it "ridiculous" and "the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don't know what they're talking about." “The fact is we don't need to be profiling in order to be able to get the job done here,” Christie told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “What you need is a president who's had the experience and the know-how to do this and not someone who's just going to talk off the top of their head.” Christie, of course, had only weeks before proudly boasted that he would have no qualms about turning away a 3-year-old Syrian orphan refugee. Not exactly a Friday afternoon news dump, but in certainly a surprise announcement meant to overtake rather than hide beneath the news cycle, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump in Texas today. “There is no one who is better prepared to provide America with the strong leadership it leads,” Christie said of his one-time rival on Friday. Of course, Christie wasn't always singing the Donald's praises. Here are just a few of Christie's choice words reserved for the Republican's dominant presidential frontrunner: On his qualifications to be president: Trump’s “temperament is [not] suited for that and I don’t think his experience is.” Campaigning against Trump in New Hampshire last month, Trump warned that if Republicans nominate a candidate like Trump “we could wind up turning over the White House to Hillary Clinton for four more years.” “We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. Showmanship is fun, but it’s not the type of leadership that will truly change America,” Christie said on the campus of Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire. “If we’re going to turn our frustration and anger with the D.C. insiders and the politicians of yesterday and the carnival barkers of today into something that will actually change Americans’ lives, then we must elect someone who has been tested, someone with proven experience.” “We do not need reality TV in the Oval Office right now,” Christie said of Trump. “President of the United States is not a place for an entertainer.” On his easy ride with media: Trump "sits in his jammies in Trump Tower and phones in!" “I got sent down to the undercard debate by Fox News,” Christie complained to Sean Hannity last month. “I didn’t think it was fair. But I didn't whine and moan and complain and walk away. I went to the debate. I argued my points. On his grand promises: “How? How?” “He’s gonna build a wall and it’s gonna be an incredible, beautiful marvelous wall," Christie said of Trump's big campaign promise to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border while in New Hampshire in January, impersonating the blustery billionaire. "The wall is gonna be unbelievable. The wall is gonna have a door, the door is gonna open and close and good people come in, the bad people go out. It’s gonna be an amazing wall. It’s gonna be a beautiful wall—and the Mexicans are gonna pay for the wall because Trump says they’ll pay for the wall.” “The core of my criticism of Mr. Trump is this,” Christie said. “How? How?” Christie's critique of The Donald's grand plans continued. “When I become president the country is gonna get so wealthy, so amazingly wealthy and rich that we’re not gonna have to worry about Social Security,” Christie said, mocking Tump. Then he turned semi-serious. “How? ... Bravado, by itself is not a plan.” On Trump's claims of cheering Muslims in New Jersey on 9/11: "It didn't happen" “It didn’t happen and the fact is, people can say anything, but the facts are the facts, and that didn’t happen in New Jersey that day and hasn’t happened since,” Christie told reporters back in December after first saying in November "I don't recall that. I don't" On his Muslim travel ban: "The kind of thing that people say when they have no experience" Last December, Christie blasted Trump's controversial and unconstitutional temporary ban on all Muslims entering the U.S., calling it "ridiculous" and "the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don't know what they're talking about." “The fact is we don't need to be profiling in order to be able to get the job done here,” Christie told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “What you need is a president who's had the experience and the know-how to do this and not someone who's just going to talk off the top of their head.” Christie, of course, had only weeks before proudly boasted that he would have no qualms about turning away a 3-year-old Syrian orphan refugee. Not exactly a Friday afternoon news dump, but in certainly a surprise announcement meant to overtake rather than hide beneath the news cycle, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump in Texas today. “There is no one who is better prepared to provide America with the strong leadership it leads,” Christie said of his one-time rival on Friday. Of course, Christie wasn't always singing the Donald's praises. Here are just a few of Christie's choice words reserved for the Republican's dominant presidential frontrunner: On his qualifications to be president: Trump’s “temperament is [not] suited for that and I don’t think his experience is.” Campaigning against Trump in New Hampshire last month, Trump warned that if Republicans nominate a candidate like Trump “we could wind up turning over the White House to Hillary Clinton for four more years.” “We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. Showmanship is fun, but it’s not the type of leadership that will truly change America,” Christie said on the campus of Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire. “If we’re going to turn our frustration and anger with the D.C. insiders and the politicians of yesterday and the carnival barkers of today into something that will actually change Americans’ lives, then we must elect someone who has been tested, someone with proven experience.” “We do not need reality TV in the Oval Office right now,” Christie said of Trump. “President of the United States is not a place for an entertainer.” On his easy ride with media: Trump "sits in his jammies in Trump Tower and phones in!" “I got sent down to the undercard debate by Fox News,” Christie complained to Sean Hannity last month. “I didn’t think it was fair. But I didn't whine and moan and complain and walk away. I went to the debate. I argued my points. On his grand promises: “How? How?” “He’s gonna build a wall and it’s gonna be an incredible, beautiful marvelous wall," Christie said of Trump's big campaign promise to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border while in New Hampshire in January, impersonating the blustery billionaire. "The wall is gonna be unbelievable. The wall is gonna have a door, the door is gonna open and close and good people come in, the bad people go out. It’s gonna be an amazing wall. It’s gonna be a beautiful wall—and the Mexicans are gonna pay for the wall because Trump says they’ll pay for the wall.” “The core of my criticism of Mr. Trump is this,” Christie said. “How? How?” Christie's critique of The Donald's grand plans continued. “When I become president the country is gonna get so wealthy, so amazingly wealthy and rich that we’re not gonna have to worry about Social Security,” Christie said, mocking Tump. Then he turned semi-serious. “How? ... Bravado, by itself is not a plan.” On Trump's claims of cheering Muslims in New Jersey on 9/11: "It didn't happen" “It didn’t happen and the fact is, people can say anything, but the facts are the facts, and that didn’t happen in New Jersey that day and hasn’t happened since,” Christie told reporters back in December after first saying in November "I don't recall that. I don't" On his Muslim travel ban: "The kind of thing that people say when they have no experience" Last December, Christie blasted Trump's controversial and unconstitutional temporary ban on all Muslims entering the U.S., calling it "ridiculous" and "the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don't know what they're talking about." “The fact is we don't need to be profiling in order to be able to get the job done here,” Christie told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “What you need is a president who's had the experience and the know-how to do this and not someone who's just going to talk off the top of their head.” Christie, of course, had only weeks before proudly boasted that he would have no qualms about turning away a 3-year-old Syrian orphan refugee.
Trump Rules in effect: The Donald fields softball questions while Hillary gets grilled
"For now, Trump is generally considered a unicorn -- a candidate who gets away with things no one else could." Washington Post, February 22. Switching back and forth between MSNBC and CNN last Thursday night as they aired competing, hour-long interviews with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, viewers ran the risk of whiplash. The threat lingered not just because Clinton and Trump were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but because the tone and tenor of the two events seemed dramatically different. Here were some of the questions posed to Clinton from the MSNBC event's co-moderators, NBC's Chuck Todd and Telemundo's José Díaz-Balart: "What would you do to make possible that the [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival] students become permanent residents?" "Would you ever imagine raising the retirement age in the next 10 years?" "Do you foresee a time when the federal government would be able to include the undocumented [workers] in federal grants for education?" "Should people start paying Social Security taxes on income over $120,000?" "Is a presidential visit [to Cuba] a step too far? Would a President Clinton be going this quickly?" By contrast, here were some of the questions posed to Trump from the CNN moderator, Anderson Cooper: "What do you eat when you roll up at a McDonald's, what does - what does Donald Trump order?" "What's your favorite kind of music?" "How many hours a night do you sleep?" "What kind of a parent are you?" "What is one thing you wish you didn't do?" Obviously, those questions don't reflect everything asked over the 60-minute programs. And I'm not suggesting Trump didn't get any policy questions during his CNN sit-down. But the vibe from MSNBC's Clinton event was definitely, Midterm Cram Session, while the vibe from CNN's Trump event leaned towards, People Magazine Wants To Know. (One week later, Clinton sat for a CNN town hall where she did not receive any of the light, lifestyle questions that were asked to Trump.) In a way, the interviews nicely captured the unfolding guidelines for the 2016 campaign season. With both Clinton and Trump enjoying big election wins last weekend and now apparently with inside tracks to their party's nomination, we're beginning to see signs about what the press coverage of a Clinton vs. Trump general election might look like. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been in the public spotlight so long, and have been sparring with the Beltway press for so many years, that so-called Clinton Rules have been established. They outline the informal guidelines media follow when covering the Clintons. The one-word distillation of the Clinton Rules? Negativity. Likely followed by distrust, snark, and condescension. Simple facts are considered optional and the Clintons are always, always held to a different, tougher standard than everyone else. By contrast, Trump has only been in the campaign spotlight for eight months but I'd suggest the media's Trump Rules have already come into focus: Intimidation, aggrandizement, and a lack of curiosity. In other words, when you fly above the campaign season with a bird's eye view, it seems inescapable that the press is being soft on the Republican, while at the same being hard on the Democrat. Have reporters and pundits given Trump a complete pass? Absolutely not. (See more below.) Just as with the Clinton Rules, there are always exceptions to the coverage. But in terms of a vibe and a feel, it's hard to claim that Trump is getting hit with the same relentlessly caustic (she's doomed!) coverage that follows Clinton around everywhere she goes. Can anyone even imagine what the relentless, almost hysterical, press coverage would look like if Clinton rallies were marred by violence, and if she denounced campaign reporters as disgusting liars? So far, neither of those phenomena from the Trump campaign have sparked crisis coverage from the press. Some journalists are starting to concede the Trump Rules are in effect. The Washington Post just dubbedTrump a "unicorn" because he gets away with things no other candidate does. On Twitter, BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith suggested "there's obviously been a trade, mostly on TV, of laying off his dishonesty and bigotry on exchange for access." Pulitizer Prize-winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin bemoaned the hands-off vetting of Trump:
Do we know, at this point, about his modus operandi in business? Do we know how he treated his staff? Do we know what kind of leader he was when he was building his business? I mean, I don't know the answers to these things. All I know is that, when I see him now, it's like his past is not being used by the media to tell us who the guy really is.And neither do I. For instance, I don't know much about Trump's finances. Clinton last year released eight years of tax returns but Trump won't yet give a firm answer regarding if and when he'll do the same. So why hasn't that been a pressing media pursuit? Last week, veteran Time political scribe Joe Klein also teed off on his colleagues, while appearing on MSNBC'sLast Word With Lawrence O'Donnell:
It's the most -- probably the most embarrassing coverage of a candidate that I've seen in my 11-God- help-me presidential campaigns. First of all, we're aggrandizing him like crazy because he boosts ratings. Second of all, we're not doing our job.Days later, leaked audio from MSNBC's infamous Trump town hall event seemed to confirm a central claim that excessive Trump coverage -- and usually the fawning variety -- is good for business and good for media careers. During a commercial break after Mika Brzezinski thanked Trump for participating in the town hall event, Trump said, "I'm doing this because you get great ratings and a raise -- me, I get nothing." They don't teach that at journalism school. Note that the strange part of the larger Trump Rules phenomenon is that the candidate mouths so muchconstant nonsense on the campaign trail, you'd think he'd dread going on TV and answering pointed questions about his bullying campaign. But it's quite the opposite. Because even when journalists raise thorny topics with him, they usually give Trump a pass. For instance, on Sunday's State of the Union, CNN's Jake Tapper asked Trump about the white supremacist supporters he had retweeted, which certainly constitutes a probing question that likely made Trump uncomfortable, right? Not exactly. While the initial question from Tapper was good, when Trump responded with a rambling, 600-word non-answer, which concluded with him vowing to bring jobs back from India, Tapper simply moved on to the next topic instead of drilling down on the fact that the Republican frontrunner was retweeting white supremacists. Or hit the Wayback Machine to last September when Trump appeared on CBS's Face the Nation and spun for host John Dickerson the fantastic tale about how 9/11 terrorists had tipped off their (mostly non-existent) wives about the pending terror attack, and had their (mostly non-existent) wives flown home days before hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center. Dickerson's response? He didn't raise a single question about Trump's concocted claims. Print journalists seem to be doing a better job at fact-checking Trump. To his credit, Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post has called out some of Trump's more outlandish claims. Kessler's recent foray surrounded Trump's "truly absurd claim he would save $300 billion a year on prescription drugs." Kessler's conclusion? Trump is nuts. Or, more delicately:
Once again, we are confronted with a nonsense figure from the mouth of Donald Trump. He is either claiming to save four times the entire cost of the Medicare prescription drug system - or he is claiming to make prescription drugs free for every American.Have occasional findings of fact like that changed the often-breezy tenor of Trump's overall coverage? No they have not. Because two days after Kessler's Medicare takedown, Trump was interviewed for an hour on CNN where the candidate wasn't asked about his nutty prescription drug estimates. But he was asked what kind of music he likes and if he orders French fries at McDonald's. Welcome to the Trump Rules."For now, Trump is generally considered a unicorn -- a candidate who gets away with things no one else could." Washington Post, February 22. Switching back and forth between MSNBC and CNN last Thursday night as they aired competing, hour-long interviews with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, viewers ran the risk of whiplash. The threat lingered not just because Clinton and Trump were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but because the tone and tenor of the two events seemed dramatically different. Here were some of the questions posed to Clinton from the MSNBC event's co-moderators, NBC's Chuck Todd and Telemundo's José Díaz-Balart: "What would you do to make possible that the [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival] students become permanent residents?" "Would you ever imagine raising the retirement age in the next 10 years?" "Do you foresee a time when the federal government would be able to include the undocumented [workers] in federal grants for education?" "Should people start paying Social Security taxes on income over $120,000?" "Is a presidential visit [to Cuba] a step too far? Would a President Clinton be going this quickly?" By contrast, here were some of the questions posed to Trump from the CNN moderator, Anderson Cooper: "What do you eat when you roll up at a McDonald's, what does - what does Donald Trump order?" "What's your favorite kind of music?" "How many hours a night do you sleep?" "What kind of a parent are you?" "What is one thing you wish you didn't do?" Obviously, those questions don't reflect everything asked over the 60-minute programs. And I'm not suggesting Trump didn't get any policy questions during his CNN sit-down. But the vibe from MSNBC's Clinton event was definitely, Midterm Cram Session, while the vibe from CNN's Trump event leaned towards, People Magazine Wants To Know. (One week later, Clinton sat for a CNN town hall where she did not receive any of the light, lifestyle questions that were asked to Trump.) In a way, the interviews nicely captured the unfolding guidelines for the 2016 campaign season. With both Clinton and Trump enjoying big election wins last weekend and now apparently with inside tracks to their party's nomination, we're beginning to see signs about what the press coverage of a Clinton vs. Trump general election might look like. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been in the public spotlight so long, and have been sparring with the Beltway press for so many years, that so-called Clinton Rules have been established. They outline the informal guidelines media follow when covering the Clintons. The one-word distillation of the Clinton Rules? Negativity. Likely followed by distrust, snark, and condescension. Simple facts are considered optional and the Clintons are always, always held to a different, tougher standard than everyone else. By contrast, Trump has only been in the campaign spotlight for eight months but I'd suggest the media's Trump Rules have already come into focus: Intimidation, aggrandizement, and a lack of curiosity. In other words, when you fly above the campaign season with a bird's eye view, it seems inescapable that the press is being soft on the Republican, while at the same being hard on the Democrat. Have reporters and pundits given Trump a complete pass? Absolutely not. (See more below.) Just as with the Clinton Rules, there are always exceptions to the coverage. But in terms of a vibe and a feel, it's hard to claim that Trump is getting hit with the same relentlessly caustic (she's doomed!) coverage that follows Clinton around everywhere she goes. Can anyone even imagine what the relentless, almost hysterical, press coverage would look like if Clinton rallies were marred by violence, and if she denounced campaign reporters as disgusting liars? So far, neither of those phenomena from the Trump campaign have sparked crisis coverage from the press. Some journalists are starting to concede the Trump Rules are in effect. The Washington Post just dubbedTrump a "unicorn" because he gets away with things no other candidate does. On Twitter, BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith suggested "there's obviously been a trade, mostly on TV, of laying off his dishonesty and bigotry on exchange for access." Pulitizer Prize-winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin bemoaned the hands-off vetting of Trump:
Do we know, at this point, about his modus operandi in business? Do we know how he treated his staff? Do we know what kind of leader he was when he was building his business? I mean, I don't know the answers to these things. All I know is that, when I see him now, it's like his past is not being used by the media to tell us who the guy really is.And neither do I. For instance, I don't know much about Trump's finances. Clinton last year released eight years of tax returns but Trump won't yet give a firm answer regarding if and when he'll do the same. So why hasn't that been a pressing media pursuit? Last week, veteran Time political scribe Joe Klein also teed off on his colleagues, while appearing on MSNBC'sLast Word With Lawrence O'Donnell:
It's the most -- probably the most embarrassing coverage of a candidate that I've seen in my 11-God- help-me presidential campaigns. First of all, we're aggrandizing him like crazy because he boosts ratings. Second of all, we're not doing our job.Days later, leaked audio from MSNBC's infamous Trump town hall event seemed to confirm a central claim that excessive Trump coverage -- and usually the fawning variety -- is good for business and good for media careers. During a commercial break after Mika Brzezinski thanked Trump for participating in the town hall event, Trump said, "I'm doing this because you get great ratings and a raise -- me, I get nothing." They don't teach that at journalism school. Note that the strange part of the larger Trump Rules phenomenon is that the candidate mouths so muchconstant nonsense on the campaign trail, you'd think he'd dread going on TV and answering pointed questions about his bullying campaign. But it's quite the opposite. Because even when journalists raise thorny topics with him, they usually give Trump a pass. For instance, on Sunday's State of the Union, CNN's Jake Tapper asked Trump about the white supremacist supporters he had retweeted, which certainly constitutes a probing question that likely made Trump uncomfortable, right? Not exactly. While the initial question from Tapper was good, when Trump responded with a rambling, 600-word non-answer, which concluded with him vowing to bring jobs back from India, Tapper simply moved on to the next topic instead of drilling down on the fact that the Republican frontrunner was retweeting white supremacists. Or hit the Wayback Machine to last September when Trump appeared on CBS's Face the Nation and spun for host John Dickerson the fantastic tale about how 9/11 terrorists had tipped off their (mostly non-existent) wives about the pending terror attack, and had their (mostly non-existent) wives flown home days before hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center. Dickerson's response? He didn't raise a single question about Trump's concocted claims. Print journalists seem to be doing a better job at fact-checking Trump. To his credit, Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post has called out some of Trump's more outlandish claims. Kessler's recent foray surrounded Trump's "truly absurd claim he would save $300 billion a year on prescription drugs." Kessler's conclusion? Trump is nuts. Or, more delicately:
Once again, we are confronted with a nonsense figure from the mouth of Donald Trump. He is either claiming to save four times the entire cost of the Medicare prescription drug system - or he is claiming to make prescription drugs free for every American.Have occasional findings of fact like that changed the often-breezy tenor of Trump's overall coverage? No they have not. Because two days after Kessler's Medicare takedown, Trump was interviewed for an hour on CNN where the candidate wasn't asked about his nutty prescription drug estimates. But he was asked what kind of music he likes and if he orders French fries at McDonald's. Welcome to the Trump Rules.
GOP doomsday is at hand: The Donald is positioned to win big on Super Tuesday
The Republican Party is running out of time and options to stop Donald Trump after winning as expected in Nevada’s Tuesday night caucuses, although party insiders are increasingly desperate about what to do. Trump, who was leading in Nevada polls—where he has a big Las Vegas hotel-casino—won his largest percentage yet in any of 2016’s caucuses and primaries, with 46 percent of the vote, which was almost twice as much as both Marco Rubio (24 percent) and Ted Cruz (21 percent) received. So far, 1.2 million Republicans in four states—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada—have participated in caucuses or voted, in contests where 133 delegates have been at stake under party rules where 1,237 are needed for the presidential nomination. Cruz won Iowa. Trump has won everything since. And next week is when 15 states, with 699 delegates, will vote in primaries or hold the first stage in caucuses on March 1, so-called Super Tuesday. Right now, the latest polls in those states listed on RealClearPolitics.com show Trump ahead in nine of those states—Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas and Vermont. Cruz is ahead in Texas and Arkansas. And Ben Carson is ahead in Colorado, but that survey was taken in November, rendering it meaningless. If Trump wins all these states, he stands to gain upward of 400 delegates, where as the prior states only had 133 delegates in play and awarded some to non-winners. Beyond the math, the Republican Party establishment is in a real tizzy over what to do. An array of scenarios have been floated—such as pundits like Larry Sabatosuggesting Rubio and John Kasich team up, creating a way to likely win Florida and Ohio in the fall. Others have pushed a Cruz-Rubio ticket. Still others have said true conservatives may need to back a third-party candidate. And other GOP strategists have suggested that maybe New York City’s former mayor Michael Bloomberg might be more acceptable than another Clinton presidency. Or they are saying principled Republicans might just have to sit this one out, while others respond that's impossible, they cannot surrender the party’s brand. No matter the fanciful fantasy embraced, the reality is the clock is running out on the GOP to stop Trump’s hostile takeover of the party. This is not a conclusion based on the particulars of Trump’s showing in Nevada—as he is very well-known there—but more on the weaknesses of Rubio and Cruz as seen in that state. As Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com noted, Rubio still hasn’t won a single state, and Cruz lost badly in Nevada and before that in South Carolina among constituencies thought to be his best supporters. “He carried only 27 percent of the white born-again and evangelical Christian vote, behind Trump’s 41 percent. Cruz also lost this group in New Hampshire andSouth Carolina,” Silver and Harry Enten co-wrote. “Cruz also trailed among 'very conservative' voters in Nevada, 34 percent to Trump’s 38 percent.” In short, even if Cruz wins his home state of Texas and nearby Arkansas next Tuesday, as RealClearPolitics’ latest polls have him 4 to 5 points ahead of Trump in both states, it is looking like the beginning of the end of the Cruz campaign. Of course, the only thing certain about the 2016 campaign trail is nothing is certain. But next Tuesday’s dozen GOP contests with half of the delegates needed to secure the nomination in play is going to be a milestone that can’t be ignored. It is likely that the most virulent voters in the party’s base, who have embraced Trump’s boasts, bullying, bigotry and brashness will be on their way to vanquishing their party’s pro-corporate elites. Where this goes next is unclear, but it’s surely not toward scenarios where cooler heads will prevail—even if Trump will surprise everyone by trying to sound more moderate after fanning the flames. Anybody who has been on the receiving end of GOP tirades (pro-choice women, LBGT individuals, voters in communities of color, climate change scientists, undocumented migrants, labor unions, etc.) or suffered from their obstructionism—as epitomized by Senate Republicans refusing to consider a Supreme Court nomination—knows the modern GOP has been extremist for years. The difference now is Trump’s ascent seems to have brought an old and ugly form of mob rule into mainstream view, whereas pledges years ago by now-Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to impede President Obama at every turn and create a failed presidency were cloaked in more "acceptable" partisan gamesmanship under Washington’s political rules. As many people have noted, Republicans have sown the seeds of Trump’s increasing electoral successes for years. But now they have to live with the consequences, which may mean the end of their party as many know it. The time appears to be running out to stop Trump from gaining the nomination, making the immediate future a belwether for where one of the country’s major parties is going—over the edge and toward a darkening unknown.
The Republican Party is running out of time and options to stop Donald Trump after winning as expected in Nevada’s Tuesday night caucuses, although party insiders are increasingly desperate about what to do. Trump, who was leading in Nevada polls—where he has a big Las Vegas hotel-casino—won his largest percentage yet in any of 2016’s caucuses and primaries, with 46 percent of the vote, which was almost twice as much as both Marco Rubio (24 percent) and Ted Cruz (21 percent) received. So far, 1.2 million Republicans in four states—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada—have participated in caucuses or voted, in contests where 133 delegates have been at stake under party rules where 1,237 are needed for the presidential nomination. Cruz won Iowa. Trump has won everything since. And next week is when 15 states, with 699 delegates, will vote in primaries or hold the first stage in caucuses on March 1, so-called Super Tuesday. Right now, the latest polls in those states listed on RealClearPolitics.com show Trump ahead in nine of those states—Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas and Vermont. Cruz is ahead in Texas and Arkansas. And Ben Carson is ahead in Colorado, but that survey was taken in November, rendering it meaningless. If Trump wins all these states, he stands to gain upward of 400 delegates, where as the prior states only had 133 delegates in play and awarded some to non-winners. Beyond the math, the Republican Party establishment is in a real tizzy over what to do. An array of scenarios have been floated—such as pundits like Larry Sabatosuggesting Rubio and John Kasich team up, creating a way to likely win Florida and Ohio in the fall. Others have pushed a Cruz-Rubio ticket. Still others have said true conservatives may need to back a third-party candidate. And other GOP strategists have suggested that maybe New York City’s former mayor Michael Bloomberg might be more acceptable than another Clinton presidency. Or they are saying principled Republicans might just have to sit this one out, while others respond that's impossible, they cannot surrender the party’s brand. No matter the fanciful fantasy embraced, the reality is the clock is running out on the GOP to stop Trump’s hostile takeover of the party. This is not a conclusion based on the particulars of Trump’s showing in Nevada—as he is very well-known there—but more on the weaknesses of Rubio and Cruz as seen in that state. As Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com noted, Rubio still hasn’t won a single state, and Cruz lost badly in Nevada and before that in South Carolina among constituencies thought to be his best supporters. “He carried only 27 percent of the white born-again and evangelical Christian vote, behind Trump’s 41 percent. Cruz also lost this group in New Hampshire andSouth Carolina,” Silver and Harry Enten co-wrote. “Cruz also trailed among 'very conservative' voters in Nevada, 34 percent to Trump’s 38 percent.” In short, even if Cruz wins his home state of Texas and nearby Arkansas next Tuesday, as RealClearPolitics’ latest polls have him 4 to 5 points ahead of Trump in both states, it is looking like the beginning of the end of the Cruz campaign. Of course, the only thing certain about the 2016 campaign trail is nothing is certain. But next Tuesday’s dozen GOP contests with half of the delegates needed to secure the nomination in play is going to be a milestone that can’t be ignored. It is likely that the most virulent voters in the party’s base, who have embraced Trump’s boasts, bullying, bigotry and brashness will be on their way to vanquishing their party’s pro-corporate elites. Where this goes next is unclear, but it’s surely not toward scenarios where cooler heads will prevail—even if Trump will surprise everyone by trying to sound more moderate after fanning the flames. Anybody who has been on the receiving end of GOP tirades (pro-choice women, LBGT individuals, voters in communities of color, climate change scientists, undocumented migrants, labor unions, etc.) or suffered from their obstructionism—as epitomized by Senate Republicans refusing to consider a Supreme Court nomination—knows the modern GOP has been extremist for years. The difference now is Trump’s ascent seems to have brought an old and ugly form of mob rule into mainstream view, whereas pledges years ago by now-Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to impede President Obama at every turn and create a failed presidency were cloaked in more "acceptable" partisan gamesmanship under Washington’s political rules. As many people have noted, Republicans have sown the seeds of Trump’s increasing electoral successes for years. But now they have to live with the consequences, which may mean the end of their party as many know it. The time appears to be running out to stop Trump from gaining the nomination, making the immediate future a belwether for where one of the country’s major parties is going—over the edge and toward a darkening unknown.
The Republican Party is running out of time and options to stop Donald Trump after winning as expected in Nevada’s Tuesday night caucuses, although party insiders are increasingly desperate about what to do. Trump, who was leading in Nevada polls—where he has a big Las Vegas hotel-casino—won his largest percentage yet in any of 2016’s caucuses and primaries, with 46 percent of the vote, which was almost twice as much as both Marco Rubio (24 percent) and Ted Cruz (21 percent) received. So far, 1.2 million Republicans in four states—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada—have participated in caucuses or voted, in contests where 133 delegates have been at stake under party rules where 1,237 are needed for the presidential nomination. Cruz won Iowa. Trump has won everything since. And next week is when 15 states, with 699 delegates, will vote in primaries or hold the first stage in caucuses on March 1, so-called Super Tuesday. Right now, the latest polls in those states listed on RealClearPolitics.com show Trump ahead in nine of those states—Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas and Vermont. Cruz is ahead in Texas and Arkansas. And Ben Carson is ahead in Colorado, but that survey was taken in November, rendering it meaningless. If Trump wins all these states, he stands to gain upward of 400 delegates, where as the prior states only had 133 delegates in play and awarded some to non-winners. Beyond the math, the Republican Party establishment is in a real tizzy over what to do. An array of scenarios have been floated—such as pundits like Larry Sabatosuggesting Rubio and John Kasich team up, creating a way to likely win Florida and Ohio in the fall. Others have pushed a Cruz-Rubio ticket. Still others have said true conservatives may need to back a third-party candidate. And other GOP strategists have suggested that maybe New York City’s former mayor Michael Bloomberg might be more acceptable than another Clinton presidency. Or they are saying principled Republicans might just have to sit this one out, while others respond that's impossible, they cannot surrender the party’s brand. No matter the fanciful fantasy embraced, the reality is the clock is running out on the GOP to stop Trump’s hostile takeover of the party. This is not a conclusion based on the particulars of Trump’s showing in Nevada—as he is very well-known there—but more on the weaknesses of Rubio and Cruz as seen in that state. As Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com noted, Rubio still hasn’t won a single state, and Cruz lost badly in Nevada and before that in South Carolina among constituencies thought to be his best supporters. “He carried only 27 percent of the white born-again and evangelical Christian vote, behind Trump’s 41 percent. Cruz also lost this group in New Hampshire andSouth Carolina,” Silver and Harry Enten co-wrote. “Cruz also trailed among 'very conservative' voters in Nevada, 34 percent to Trump’s 38 percent.” In short, even if Cruz wins his home state of Texas and nearby Arkansas next Tuesday, as RealClearPolitics’ latest polls have him 4 to 5 points ahead of Trump in both states, it is looking like the beginning of the end of the Cruz campaign. Of course, the only thing certain about the 2016 campaign trail is nothing is certain. But next Tuesday’s dozen GOP contests with half of the delegates needed to secure the nomination in play is going to be a milestone that can’t be ignored. It is likely that the most virulent voters in the party’s base, who have embraced Trump’s boasts, bullying, bigotry and brashness will be on their way to vanquishing their party’s pro-corporate elites. Where this goes next is unclear, but it’s surely not toward scenarios where cooler heads will prevail—even if Trump will surprise everyone by trying to sound more moderate after fanning the flames. Anybody who has been on the receiving end of GOP tirades (pro-choice women, LBGT individuals, voters in communities of color, climate change scientists, undocumented migrants, labor unions, etc.) or suffered from their obstructionism—as epitomized by Senate Republicans refusing to consider a Supreme Court nomination—knows the modern GOP has been extremist for years. The difference now is Trump’s ascent seems to have brought an old and ugly form of mob rule into mainstream view, whereas pledges years ago by now-Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to impede President Obama at every turn and create a failed presidency were cloaked in more "acceptable" partisan gamesmanship under Washington’s political rules. As many people have noted, Republicans have sown the seeds of Trump’s increasing electoral successes for years. But now they have to live with the consequences, which may mean the end of their party as many know it. The time appears to be running out to stop Trump from gaining the nomination, making the immediate future a belwether for where one of the country’s major parties is going—over the edge and toward a darkening unknown. 
7 astounding conservative confessions about Donald Trump and the dismal state of the GOP
Pass the bourbon! Yes, it’s really come to that. Not only are stalwarts of the American conservative movement apoplectic about Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the GOP, they are doing the country a remarkable favor by explicitly saying what makes their party so weak and Trump such a loser. Tonight, when GOP presidential candidates meet for yet a final debate before 15 states vote or caucus on Super Tuesday, these angst-filled voices are saying Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have their last chances to save the GOP from itself by going nuclear. We will see if that happens and how the Donald responds, but in the meantime take a look at what conservatives are saying about the GOP, its backbone, its base, and about its increasingly likely nominee. 1. All bark, no bite and no fight. The National Review’s staff writer Charles C.W. Cooke starts by saying the GOP doesn’t know how to fight anymore, whether shutting down the federal government for longer or taking on Trump: “If I am told one more time that it makes sense to nominate a single-payer-supporting defender of Planned Parenthood because Congress’s repeal-and-defund bill was vetoed by the incumbent, I shall begin to order bourbon in bulk.” 2. The others are losers and wimps. Cooke notes the rest of the 2016 GOP field has been, well, pathetic. “How will they [future conservatives] comprehend that at the end of February 2016 under 10 percent of all super PAC spending had been trained on Donald Trump? How will they see John Kasich’s admission that he doesn’t know if he should even be president, or process that Ben Carson put the construction of his own political shopping network above the country he supposedly loved? And what will they make of the fact that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio wasted so much time pretending that they meaningfully disagreed with each other? Now is the time to throw everything at Trump, and to stop this disaster in its tracks.” 3. Trump is a white trash billionaire. Cooke says Rubio and Cruz need to say so. “They must explain that Trump is an entitled mess whose business record is so questionable that he managed to bankrupt a casino; that he is an unashamed fraud who didn’t even wait to be elected president before folding on Planned Parenthood and Obamacare, exactly like the “feckless” Congress he is running against; that he is feigning religiosity to appeal to people he believes are rubes; and, above all, that whatever he may be pretending now, he has spent a lifetime screwing the little guy. 4. Go birther on the birther. Cooke says the Donald must die to save the GOP, and those attacks can start with one of his ploys—saying he isn’t eligible to be president. “Melt down the fences if you have to; we need long-range bombers here. If Donald Trump can flood the airwaves with his nonsense, his opponents can counter it incessantly. And while they are at it, they can tie him up in court, just as he’s trying to do to Cruz. There are a good number of “just asking” questions ready to be put to them, among them “Trump’s mother was Scottish, can he really be president?” and “Trump ran a host of scams designed to rip off the poor; surely one of them would like to sue him?” 5. Get through to the “morons.”At The Federalist, Bill James, cites all the rational reasons why Trump is unqualified to be president, but then notes his party’s base is filled with “morons” supporting him. On the brainy side of this ledger, James said, “Trump is more interested in what is good for Donald Trump than in what is good for America… I don’t think Trump’s background in business prepares him… Trump’s hard-ass approach to problems would be very dangerous for our nation… (And) everything he says is either an outright lie, or something he is merely saying because it is convenient.” James, who says Trump’s message comes down to standing up for yourself, blames the media—“you can’t get away from this egomaniac”—and says the GOP’s pro-Trump base has become a lost and ignorant tribe. “I don’t think that Trump can win, frankly, because I don’t think there are enough morons to elect him. A certain percentage of the American public is just morons; that’s the way it is.” 6. Arm the loosest of loose cannons? The right-wing Washington Post editorial boad is now 
February 25, 2016
“Unintelligible yelling”: CNN’s closed captioner is fed up with tonight’s GOP debate and doesn’t care who knows it
It's an open secret that I'm legally and for all practical purposes deaf, and watch Fox News every day with the closed captioning on, so as I was covering tonight's Republican debate, I watched as I always do -- and about two hours into it, I was rewarded for my deafness as the person responsible for captioning the debate just threw his or her hands in the air and surrendered, as any rational person would do. The cover image on this story says all that needs to be said. We will link to a video tomorrow, once CNN puts it online.It's an open secret that I'm legally and for all practical purposes deaf, and watch Fox News every day with the closed captioning on, so as I was covering tonight's Republican debate, I watched as I always do -- and about two hours into it, I was rewarded for my deafness as the person responsible for captioning the debate just threw his or her hands in the air and surrendered, as any rational person would do. The cover image on this story says all that needs to be said. We will link to a video tomorrow, once CNN puts it online.
Bill Maher on Trump’s out-of-control debate performance: “You have one hour to stop this man!”
Bill Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... Maher was live-tweeting tonight's GOP debate, and he had the same reaction that all thinking people did: https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/...
